Salem Conservation Commission
Minutes of Meeting
Date and Time: Thursday, January 10, 2013, 6:00 p.m.
Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street
Members Present: Vice Chair David Pabich, Dan Ricciarelli Amy Hamilton, Gregory St. Louis, Michael Blier, Bart Hoskins
Members Absent: Chair Julia Knisel, Gregory St. Louis
Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent
Recorder: Stacy Kilb
Acting Chair David Pabich calls the meeting to order at 6:03PM.
Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, 10 Park Plaza, Suite 3910, Boston, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed station improvements including construction of a new parking facility within a wetland resource area at 242 & 252-rear Bridge Street (Salem Commuter Rail Station).
Holly Palmgrin introduces the team. She is joined by George Doherty, Project Manager for the MBTA, , Mark Wixted of Klein Felder, and Sean Hale of Epsilon Wetlands. She states that they have been though MEPA, and have a draft Chapter 91 license.
Sean Hale presents. He outlines the project for the intermodal station with a new train platform and five story garage, which will double the parking capacity. There will also be improvements to access and landscaping. From a wetlands permitting standpoint, there is land subject to coastal storm flowage as the entire site is in the 100 year flood zone. There is also riverfront area of the North River, and a sea wall that delineates that coastal bank. The mean annual high water line for riverfront and coastal bank are represented by the seawall. There is also coastal beach and tidal flats; a small salt marsh means there is a 100 foot buffer zone.
No performance standards must be met under the Wetlands Protection Act, but the project must comply with the building code re the 100 year flood plain. It will comply – the flood plain is at elevation 9 and all entrances were designed at 10.5; also, mechanical and electrical equipment will be housed in concrete enclosures.
The site is described as previously developed and degraded. Because it requires the Ch. 91 license, it is exempt from Riverfront performance standards, yet they feel their work will improve the riverfront area.
Other resource areas are beyond the seawall, such as the vegetated grass and gravel area. They will not have any activities closer than 25-30’ landward of the seawall. There will be no impacts to the coastal beach, tidal flat, or salt marsh.
Currently the area is a large paved parking lot. There will be more green and open space, with 13-15% more pervious surfaces than are currently there. Regarding stormwater management – this is a redevelopment project, so it must comply with only certain standards, but they are still improving the existing stormwater system. Currently there is no treatment except for catch basins, and they will all be replaced with deep sump hooded catch basins, and the design will incorporate a storm scepter to further treat water before it is released to the existing outfall. No new outfalls or untreated discharges are proposed.
Ricciarelli asks about the locations of the current catch basins. Mark Wixted shows the locations. The Demolition Plan is presented. Mr. Wixted describes the current situation, which is a series of catch basins, and outlines their setup on the Demolition plan. The system was put in during the mid-1980’s with some changes since. A tide gate empties onto a large pipe in the seawall. Pabich asks if any flow is not from this site. The only flow would be from the Salem parking lot. That is also untreated. The goal is to retain the outfall and the piping back to the tide gate, then it will be tied in upstream to the tide gate. It is a cast iron flap but will need to be maintained. The pipe is labeled as 36” but it is a 30” pipe for outfall. The tide gate is at elevation 2.5-3’. It is uncertain if utility structures
will be put in before or after the garage, but possibly some work will be done concurrently. It will be a question of staging. This is a two phase construction approach; the garage goes in first and parking and landscaping closer to the river happen second.
Pabich asks about stormwater management during construction. It requires an NPDES general permit to be submitted at construction. There will be hay bales along the edge closest to the sea wall. Nothing will get over the sea wall. Acting Chair Pabich is concerned with anything that discharges to the existing system. Catch basins will be protected with hay bales and silt fence. The Notice of Intent includes a section on catch basin protection. Stockpile areas would be protected and truck wheels washed. Blier asks about fill and Mr. Wixted explains that the building code dictates that the first floor must be above grade; it is at 10 now, and will be 11. Grades are not changing much. There will be some material coming out of the foundation system, but it is uncertain how much. The intent is to keep as much onsite as possible, and
not to import materials. Pabich asks about the wheel wash facility. That is part of what would be determined by the contractor, but they have general standards that it be included.
Ricciarelli asks about roof drains. The top floor drains to the stormwater system, while interior floors drain to the sanitary system under the plumbing code. Blier asks about the wide sidewalk. It was requested by the Fire Department to have access to that side of the building. Acting Chair Pabich notes that there will be more detail regarding construction activities once a contractor is selected. He feels this is an improvement on all levels, but he wants to make sure resources are protected once work is going on. It is noted that pavement has already been dug up for archaeological study, to be repaved before project starts.
Pabich notes that it is a complex project, but simple from a Conservation Commission standpoint. Ricciarelli notes that the seawall helps protect the resource area. Hoskins asks about the final condition between the Salem and MBTA parking lot areas. Salem’s will remain existing parking but currently includes a crumbling bank. Access will change slightly. There is existing access which is not used, and would be closed off permanently. Setup would be changed very slightly. A sidewalk connecting to the lot will be added but nothing else will be done within the property. Hoskins notes that it is at a lower elevation. Hoskins asks if it is within their purview to stabilize that bank? They will re-establish lawn on that bank and keep the headwall that is there.
Hamilton asks if the MBTA is responsible for maintaining the stormwater system. It is MBTA property and the garage operator would maintain the system. Blier asks about snow removal. They will put a snow melter on the floor below the top floor of the garage. Snow would be pushed from the roof to that and melt into the sanitary system. On the site it would be pushed onto the landscaped areas unless they run out of room, in which case they would remove from site. Snow removal will be the responsibility of the garage operator.
Pabich asks about the introduction of snow melt to the sanitary system. Because the equipment is not on the roof it must go into the sanitary system. They can’t put the melter on the roof since snow must be pushed into a grate on top of the equipment. There is a type that can go on top of the roof, but they would have to lift rather than plow snow, and snow could go over side and hit someone below, so it is a safety issue. It is not standard, but they are doing it here and in Beverly. Standard practice is to dump it over the side of the roof, then remove it. Due to walkways around the garage it would be a liability. Sometimes snow is left on the roof, but then it takes up parking spaces.
Acting Chair Pabich wonders which is better for the environment. Why could it not go into the storm scepter system? This is a plumbing code issue, and they will ask the plumbing inspector if there is another option. Hoskins asks about the roof surface – it will be a precast concrete garage.
Acting Chair Pabich opens to the public but there are no comments.
A motion to close the public hearing is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hoskins and passes unanimously
Special conditions: Applicant shall obtain approval of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan from the Conservation Agent prior to start of construction.
The Commission requests that the applicant explore an alternative to putting melted snow into the sanitary sewage system. If changes to the plan are made, they must be approved by the Commission.
A motion to issue the Order of Conditions with special condition is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hamilton, and passes unanimously. This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes.
Continuation of Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Robert Tyack, 65 Pond Street, Essex, MA. The purpose this of hearing is to discuss proposed removal of trees within a buffer zone to a wetland resource area at 204 Highland Avenue.
Arborist Robert Tyack summarizes the trees to be removed near the New England Veterinary Clinic. He is an arborist. Some trees are infringing, some are a safety risk, and others are causing shade and mold growth. Questions raised last time included the mitigation plan, so he presents information about the proposed shrubs. He believes Speckled Alder is appropriate. The main issue was canopy loss. Even though speckled alder is technically a shrub, it looks like a tree, can grow up to 30’ tall, and they thrive in wetland areas. They will replace lost canopy.
The one change Mr. Tyack recommends is that he originally suggested taking out 12 trees and recommended replacement with 18 shrubs, but the area is 75’ so 12 shrubs would be more appropriate for spacing reasons. Trees will be in a straight line for soil stabilization, canopy and aesthetics. Ricciarelli asks the untreated stormwater flowing from the parking lot. Devine says he can approach the owner about this as a separate matter.
Current trees are discussed. Blier asks what Ricciarelli means by “worst” trees – he means the oldest trees in worst shape. Mr. Tyack analyzed all the trees. Many larger ones are in decline but even if not, they provide too much shade. When they get very large, they don’t do well in the soil. Mr. Tyack comments on recent work done with posts, but believes the roof over the shed is old. The owner said when he first owned the building there were much smaller wetlands and nearby construction on another property directed water from a culvert that created wetlands. This does not affect project per se, but it does affect the trees.
Blier comments that the Alders are a good choice – they are native, will do well and grow quickly. He asks about the large trees and mold on the roof. They are not healthy enough to survive, and they pose a hazard and mold issues, and some are in worse shape than others. Some are small and not a threat now, but will be eventually, so Mr. Tyack may as well take them down while tree work is being done. Blier points out that an alternative would be to thin and prune trees to let light and air get to the roof and to reduce possibility of breakage. Mr. Tyack says the canopy is so thick that you could not thin enough to allow sunlight through. This is a question of several fully mature trees in decline – removal is always preferable in that situation. Blier wonders what wetlands would look like if everyone wanted to do
this. Alders will still be small when they are planted. There is a nursery that specializes in wetlands species in Amherst. They will go in at 3’ to 4’ tall but they can grow up to three feet year.
Pabich asks if they can take most but not all trees, for example, leave #1. Part of the issue is that the roof is low, in a wet area regardless of canopy. Ricciarelli comments that if the roof is original, there may not have been any trees there at first. Tree #1 is a huge white ash, not a threat to building, but Mr. Tyack thinks with other tree work going on, it would be a disservice to owner to not take it down at same time. To take it down later or wait until it falls is more expensive. That tree is 29” in diameter.
Blier says it seems more likely that they will improve infrastructure and rebuild the shed as the business grows, so he doesn’t want Commission to give its blessing, and then have to approve demolishing a building later. Mr. Tyack doesn’t think that will happen. The owner is a landlord, and the vet is a tenant. They are simply doing maintenance, and no further additional work will happen. Mr. Tyack is open to suggestions but strongly feels that tree # 1 is the only one that could be left, but shouldn’t be.
Hamilton is leaning toward having tree #1 remain. Hoskins comments that it would fall away from the building, possibly years later. Pabich agrees that it would be a good compromise. Blier asks about spacing on the alders. Mr. Tyack is suggesting even spacing of 6’ apart over 75’ for the 12 alders. Stumps will remain from the trees removed. Hoskins asks about monitoring new plantings. That can be conditioned.
Blier asks about the trees being too thick to thin. They are, so enough sunlight would not get through. Tree #1 could be thinned, and does not pose a risk as it leans away from the building.
Hamilton asks about if trees are in the resource area. None are in the water but Hamilton feels more information is needed (such as a delineation of the wetland boundary). It would change what they do if the trees are in the wetland not on the boundary. Mr. Tyack comments that when he and Devine were there, there is a slope to the water line and Devine agrees there is an apparent slope that defines the wetlands approximately. Using that boundary, none of the trees are actually in the wetland; the closest is 1’ away. Hamilton believes it requires a determination as to whether trees are in the wetland area. Chair Pabich asks if they should request wetlands delineation, leading to a continuance and rather than a vote tonight.
Devine suggests conditioning delineation before cutting begins, and if trees are in the wetland, removal would not be allowed. Mr. Tyack thinks this is too much for a tree job, as this is not construction, but he will run it by the owner if that is the Board’s wish, and the owner would probably agree. Mr. Tyack will have a letter from a wetlands scientist written, explaining that trees are not in the wetland area.
Acting Chair Pabich opens to the public but there are no comments. A motion to issue a Negative 3 Determination, with conditions, is made by Hamilton, seconded by Hoskins and passes unanimously. This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes.
Conditions:
- Prior to removing any trees, a wetlands scientist must determine whether any are within the wetlands. Trees found to be within the wetlands may not be removed. It is sufficient for this determination to be documented in a letter from the wetlands scientist, rather than on a plan.
- Tree #1 may be pruned but not removed.
- Applicant shall report annually in May 2014 and May 2015, for the next 2 growing seasons, on the condition and size of the new plantings, which shall be replaced if not healthy and growing.
Bart Hoskins leaves and is not present for Old/New business.
Old/New Business
- Strongwater Crossing Lot 38, DEP #64-455: Request for certificate of compliance
- Strongwater Crossing Lot 17, DEP #64-458: Request for certificate of compliance
Devine outlines that both houses have recharge systems; 38 has it only in the back as on the plan, while 17 has it in back and on the front. Devine recommends issuing the full Certificate for Lot 38, but wonders if the Commission would want grass growing for Lot 17 first before issuing the certificate. Pabich comments that approving mud would not be good. The rear of Lot 17 is in the buffer zone. There is silt fence behind both houses.
A Certificate will be issued for Lot 38, which has grass, so
A motion to issue a certificate of compliance for Lot 38 is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hamilton, and all approve. This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes.
The Commission tables the request for Lot 17, allowing the petitioner to return when grass is established.
- Clark Avenue Extension, DEP #64-259: Discussion of enforcement action
Ken Steadman and Mary Rimmer present. As requested, Wetlands Scientist Mary Rimmer and Surveyor Ralph Reed created an as-built plan titled “Salem MA As-Built plan of Clark Ave. Extension, Dec. 11, 2012.”
There were some isolated wetlands in the roadway; it was a large area of 1400’. It did not have to be replicated. Steve Dibble, who was the Conservation Agent at this time, was contacted and supports this. However, the Plan referenced in the order shows it as jurisdictional wetlands to be replicated. Mary Rimmer of Rimmer Environmental did the original delineation and Wetlands flagging for the updated plan. Since this was16 years ago, records are not available. And between the Order of Conditions being issued and replication, there was a change of plans that she was not aware of. She assumes that the wetlands were determined to be isolated and non-jurisdictional, but she was not involved. She re–flagged the boundary and Reid Surveyors put together the As-Built Plan.
The approved limit of work is different from the as-built. Some differences could be due to natural changes in the wetlands boundary after 16 years, or to changes in flag location. Some areas of unpermitted fill are on one lot, while others do not involve intrusion into wetlands. There is a shed on one property. Ricciarelli asks about the initial design—someone thought wetlands had to be replicated, but then realized it did not have to be so the square footage went back into the project. Ms. Rimmer describes the wetlands in the project. A total of 800 square feet were what ultimately had to be replicated. Replication happened near an outfall. Mr. Steadman outlines – without removing the wall, there is 1200 square feet of area; that wall extended out beyond the fill area, so 1200 feet could be replicated. The fill
area and house are slightly different than on the original plan.
1200 square feet of replication can be done beyond the wall. That area was previously wetlands. Now it is upland vegetation – bittersweet, black cherry, and european buckthorn. Devine comments that in 1999, three years after the Order was issued, Ken Steadman came back for a one year extension, and at that time Steve Dibble said he observed that replication had been mostly if not completely done. Ms. Rimmer also remembers it happening, but there are no records.
Is it beneficial to the resource to replicate 1200 square feet of wetland now or not? Ms. Rimmer thinks it would better balance the wetland amounts pre and post development. Mr. Steadman spoke to the landowners, who agreed that it could be done. Devine comments that although the area in question belongs to this homeowner, it is probably beyond what they consider their yard. It affects them only in that they cannot transfer the property until Mr. Steadman does this.
This can be permitted with the enforcement directive, rather than requiring a notice of intent. The DEP recommends doing it this way, since the enforcement directive requires the replication and the notice of intent only allows it.
Devine asks Mr. Steadman if he needs to access 24 Clark Ave., for which the owner granted Mr. Steadman a right of entry as a condition of obtaining a partial certificate of compliance. Steadman says that access is not needed, since he can access directly through 25 Clark. Ave., the property on which the replication is to be done. Pabich says that once Steadman has a new right of entry from the owner of 25 Clark Ave., Ken Steadman should do whatever is needed to eliminate the right of entry to 24 Clark Ave. so that the owner of 24 can proceed with the sale of the property.
An updated enforcement directive will provide a time frame for replication. Work cannot be done until spring, so in the meantime Mr. Steadman should submit a letter of recommendation for replication, outlining a schedule and plan.
Devine outlines: Mary Rimmer’s recommendation for replication with timeline should be submitted along with a letter from the relevant landowners, granting access for the above activity.
Pabich says the Commission must wait for the letter before issuing the enforcement directive. If not received, the Commission should make a directive requiring the letter.
Upon receipt of a letter from a wetland scientist with a recommended replication timeline, Devine will incorporate the timeline into an updated enforcement directive with enforceable milestones.
With Hill Subdivision, 10 lots: DEP #64528 through 64-537: Discussion of requirement for landscaping plans
The Commission required a landscape plan for these lots, as the buffer zone had been cleared without approval. Mr. Steadman was looking for clarifications on what would satisfy the Commission, since the Order states that the landscape plan had to be done by a wetlands scientist, so he had Mary Rimmer look, but she is not a landscape architect and doesn’t normally design landscaping outside of a resource area. Ms. Rimmer was not sure what they were looking for; normally a requirement is that that area beyond the established limit of work is allowed to re-vegetate naturally, and whatever was cut without authorization will sprout back, and this process has already started. Also, whatever landscape plantings are used must be native and the list consulted before planting.
Pabich says that the Commission issued Conditions for the roadway, not to clear all sites, and would have issued Orders for each site with some clearing, but not clear cutting. How will it be reestablished? Should substantive trees be replaced? Steadman says it looked like shrubs and saplings only were taken down. Lots are small so they will probably clear most of the area on each. Pabich says they need to know the limit of the work and Mr. Steadman outlines. Ms. Rimmer says they can mostly do this within 10 feet of wetlands except for one lot which is tighter. Siltation control/limit of work is at the back of the lots already. Pabich says all lots are in the buffer zone. Ricciarelli says people will want a backyard but it does not necessarily have to be up to the property line. Ms. Rimmer says it would be valuable if
homeowners were directed on how to plant (e.g. use native plantings).
Acting Chair Pabich asks how to prevent it from this situation from happening again. Notices of Intent must be submitted for roadway and house lots at the same time. The roadway is incidental, but that was approved yet lots were cleared. The Commission wants to look at lots as part of whole project. Mr. Steadman says the first four lots were done just like this. No one brought it up before on the Commission, and this work was done after those. Ms. Rimmer comments that many towns have road Notices of Intent done separately because of possible issues with the Certificates of Compliance with a particular lot, if not in compliance. Lots were cleared with an excavator with a mower, so larger trees were not removed. It was never grubbed.
Acting Chair Pabich says the limit of work is not the back of the lot lines, and a vegetated buffer should be increased and worked into the fabric of the neighborhood as much as possible. The Commission will give homeowners some directives for planting, with reasonable yards. Mr. Devine says the Order they have now is incorrect – there is a clerical error saying a landscaping plan is required prior to construction. The meeting minutes show that the commission only requires the plan to be approved prior to installation of the landscaping. Mr. Steadman says that if he is telling the builder, then the builder must do a landscape plan that must be approved by a wetlands scientist, then by the Commission. Ms. Rimmer is concerned about what she is approving – it is not up to her to determine if locations are good, but Pabich
says she should give input as to the most beneficial way to do plantings, with no specific requirements. She can provide a plant list as well as plants not to use. She will write up a letter for each owner outlining the parameters.
Ms. Rimmer will a provide letter describing what to plant vs. not. What they use is irrelevant as long as it’s not invasive. The Commission is concerned with the area between the building and the wetland.
Ultimately the Commission wants to see a plan. A description letter would be acceptable. Each would be filed individually.
- 11R Winter Island Road, DEP #64-519: Discussion of enforcement action
The crushed stone remains. The Commission was concerned with the crushed stone in a public way that will end up on the beach when plowed. Bill Wharff, the developer of the home that uses the public way for access, denies placing the stone there and Devine is unable to find another responsible party. There are two people who pulled the permits. The trench permit requires restoration, but in this case the City Engineer isn’t especially concerned about the crushed stone, but understands the concerns of the commission.
Devine says that if the issue is that the crushed stone will be plowed to the beach, the City could put together a policy requiring plowing away from beach. Pabich states that that is not a preferred option. It must be paved since pavement was there prior to construction. Hamilton asks if an enforcement order can be issued. It can, and they won’t close the Order of Conditions. Devine states that there is an open enforcement letter for this matter. The original enforcement letter required that 5 issues be corrected, and all but this one have been. At the last meeting, the commission chose to extend the enforcement deadline for removal of the stone.
The commission determines that the deadline of Jan. 24th will remain, and gravel should be removed by then. Ricciarelli says gravel should not be removed right now, as it could cause a mudslide. Pabich says its’ not our problem, and from this date, the owner should be fined $200/day since it was not taken care of earlier. The owner should then find someone to do it when they can. A letter will go to the developer. He has not asked for a Certificate of Compliance, so he could just say his project is not done, but he can still be fined since it is a violation of the Order of Conditions. The plan specified that the road would be repaired as needed. The Commission doesn’t care who did or didn’t do it, he is responsible because this is within his limit of work.
- 297 Bridge Street (former Universal Steel), DEP #64-541: Request for certificate of compliance
This is a request for a Certificate for the order that permitted demolition down to the slab. Ricciarelli says it has flooded with no rain due to unusually high tides. The demolition work was done, and the site is in the hands of the EPA, who is doing remediation that is exempt from Commission jurisdiction. Construction of the parking is jurisdictional and has been approved by the Commission.
A motion to issue the Certificate is made by Blier, seconded by Ricciarelli and passes unanimously. This decision is hereby made a part of these minutes.
- South River conduit project: Review of exempt activity
Devine explains that the City is planning work on the network of piping that leads into the South River Basin. The DEP regulations have been recently changed to explicitly include municipal storm sewer maintenance as an exempt activity. The Commission has no comments on this activity.
- Meeting Minutes—November 15, 2012
A motion to approve is made by Hamilton, seconded by Ricciarelli, and all approve.
A motion to adjourn is made by Hamilton, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously. The meeting ends at 8:10 PM.
Respectfully Submitted,
Stacy Kilb
Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission
Approved by the Conservation Commission on February 14, 2013
| 
